[tex-live] urw repackaged

Gerben Wierda Sherlock at rna.nl
Thu Jul 24 20:33:00 CEST 2003


Just curious:

What are the pros and cons of using urw versus Adobe?

G

On Thursday, Jul 24, 2003, at 18:44 Europe/Amsterdam, Staszek 
Wawrykiewicz wrote:

> Spending many hours on repackaging urw fonts for TL, I have the 
> following
> conclusions (perhaps interesting for CTAN people and implementors):
> 1. "urwstd" has gone (#3414)
> 2. introduced "urw" package: base35 fonts which can serve as 
> substitution
>    of standard Adobe 35 fonts (only afm+pfb) + Antiqua + Grotesk (full
>    support: afm, pfb, tfm, fd)
>    It can be seen somehow inconsequent, but I hope that it would be 
> more
>    easy to add such a package eg. to teTeX ;-)
>    Anyway, I'm open to the suggestions, eg. separating Antiqua and 
> Grotesq
>    in some other packages
> 3. introduced "urw35vf" (#3416) which contains all (historical?) stuff
>    for those using urw fonts directly (.vf, .tfm, .fd, .sty files).
>
> As usual, after such reparation some screws are left, namely nimbus.
> I don't know what to do, making separate package or to zap.
> Sebastian?
>
> -- 
> Staszek Wawrykiewicz
> StaW at gust.org.pl
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TeX Live mailing list
> http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/tex-live
>
G
--
"To be or not to be, that is the question" -- Parmenides


G
--
"To be or not to be, that is the question" -- Parmenides



More information about the tex-live mailing list